This is a submission for the Hermes Agent Challenge: Build With Hermes Agent
My Hermes Agent Couldnβt Decide Which Contracts Needed Legal Review. One Planning Layer Fixed It. ππ€
What I Built
While experimenting with enterprise AI agents, I noticed a common problem:
Contract reviews are painfully manual.
Vendor agreements, NDAs, MSAs, and SOWs often require legal teams to manually inspect:
- missing clauses
- unclear liabilities
- compliance gaps
- termination conditions
- SLA definitions
I wanted to see:
Can an AI agent intelligently decide what to review and when to escalate?
So I built an Enterprise Contract Intelligence Agent powered by Hermes Agent.
Instead of simply extracting text from contracts, the agent plans tasks, invokes tools, reasons through risks, and decides whether a contract actually requires legal review.
The interesting part?
My first version failed badly.
Hermes Agent was escalating almost every contract.
NDAs.
Vendor agreements.
Even low-risk contracts.
Technically the system worked.
Practically?
Completely unusable.
The issue turned out to be simple:
The agent lacked a confidence-based decision layer.
If a single clause looked risky, Hermes escalated immediately.
That created too many false positives.
So I redesigned the workflow.
Now Hermes Agent:
- Reads the uploaded contract
- Detects contract type
- Extracts clauses
- Identifies risk signals
- Calculates confidence score
- Determines escalation need
- Generates executive summary
The result:
Hermes now behaves much more like a real enterprise analyst instead of a rule-based script.
Example output:
Contract Type:
Vendor Agreement
Risk Score:
7.2/10
Issues Found:
β Missing termination clause
β SLA definition unclear
β Liability section weak
Confidence:
89%
Recommendation:
Escalate to Legal Review
For low-risk contracts:
Contract Type:
NDA
Risk Score:
2.1/10
Issues Found:
β
Confidentiality present
β
Termination clause present
Confidence:
94%
Recommendation:
Approved
Demo
Workflow
Contract PDF
β
Hermes Master Agent
β
Task Planning
β
Clause Extraction
β
Risk Detection
β
Confidence Scoring
β
Compliance Check
β
Final Recommendation
Example Agent Plan
1. Read uploaded contract
2. Identify contract type
3. Extract important clauses
4. Detect missing sections
5. Evaluate business risk
6. Calculate confidence
7. Decide escalation
(Adding screenshots/video walkthrough soon π)
Code
Repository:
https://github.com/radhirsh/Hermes_Agent.git
Example decision logic:
class ContractDecisionAgent:
def should_escalate(
self,
risk_score,
confidence
):
if (
risk_score > 0.7
and confidence > 0.8
):
return (
"legal_review"
)
return (
"approved"
)
My Tech Stack
- Hermes Agent
- Python
- Azure Document Intelligence
- PDFPlumber
- PyPDF
- FastAPI / Streamlit
- LangChain
- OpenAI / Azure OpenAI
How I Used Hermes Agent
Hermes Agent sits at the center of the system.
Instead of hardcoding a workflow, I used Hermes for:
1. Planning
Hermes breaks the task into smaller reasoning steps.
Example:
Read contract
β
Determine type
β
Extract clauses
β
Evaluate risk
β
Decide escalation
2. Tool Use
Hermes invokes multiple tools dynamically:
parse_pdf()
extract_clauses()
risk_detector()
compliance_checker()
summary_generator()
Different contract types require different reasoning paths, and Hermes dynamically chooses what to do next.
3. Multi-Step Reasoning
The agent doesn't just summarize documents.
It reasons through:
- missing legal clauses
- business risk
- confidence levels
- escalation decisions
This felt like a much more realistic enterprise use case for AI agents.
One big lesson from building this:
Agentic systems become useful only when they can decide what to do next, not just generate text.
Thatβs where Hermes Agent really stood out for me.
Thanks for reading π

Top comments (13)
Nice to see another Hermes user in the wild! We ran into a similar decision-fork problem with multi-agent memory writes. What worked for us was adding a lightweight planning step before the agent picks a tool β basically a 'stop and think' phase that doesn't burn a full turn. Your legal review use case is a great fit for that pattern.
Thatβs a really interesting pattern β especially the lightweight βstop and thinkβ phase before tool execution.
Right now my workflow is more sequential (classification β clause extraction β risk β escalation), but I can already see how adding a lightweight planning layer could reduce unnecessary escalations and improve decision confidence.
Something like:
Contract β Planning β Decide required tools β Execute β Final recommendation
Feels especially useful for ambiguous contracts where not every step may be needed.
Appreciate the insight β definitely going to experiment with this π
Awesome to hear someone else is running Hermes in production! The sqlitemem provider has been solid for us after dealing with some early membridge instability. What's your use case looking like β are you using it more for personal automation or team workflows?
Thanks! Great to hear Hermes has been stable for you in production too. Weβre currently using it more for enterprise-style team workflows, specifically around a Contract Intelligence Agent for legal/compliance review. Hermes is acting as the orchestration layer for planning, tool-calling, risk evaluation, and escalation decisions rather than simple automation. One interesting challenge was reducing false positives β adding a confidence-based decision layer made the agent behave much closer to a real enterprise analyst π
Contract intelligence is a killer use case for Hermes β the structured decision-making is where it really shines. Our setup is lighter
That's a super clean setup β Contract Intelligence with Hermes as the orchestration layer sounds like exactly the kind of workflow where it shines. The confidence-based decision layer for false positive reduction is a smart touch. Have you found any specific threshold tuning pattern that works best across different contract types, or does it vary a lot by domain?
Appreciate that β and yes, the threshold tuning definitely varies by contract type and business risk tolerance. During experimentation, we found that using a single escalation threshold across all contracts created too many false positives, especially for low-risk documents like NDAs.
What worked better was a contract-type-aware confidence strategy. For example, NDAs can tolerate a slightly higher approval threshold if key clauses (confidentiality, termination, governing law) are present, whereas vendor agreements/MSAs require stricter risk sensitivity around SLAs, liability, indemnification, and compliance sections.
Still iterating, but the biggest learning so far has been: confidence scoring works best when combined with contract context, not as a universal number π
The single threshold problem is exactly what we ran into too β different contract types need different thresholds because the cost of
Great discussion! Your threshold-tuning approach is really practical β I might borrow that idea. Followed you πͺ
Really sorry to hear that β I am in a similar spot actually. Our company has no active projects right now so things feel pretty uncertain on my end too. It is a weird time in tech. But honestly, seeing how deep you are into Hermes and contract intelligence, I think you have the right skills to land on your feet. The fact that you are already building with AI instead of waiting to see what happens puts you ahead of most people. Hang in there man πͺ
Sorry to hear things feel uncertain on your side too β definitely a weird phase in tech right now. Iβm trying to look at it as a push to learn faster and build more deeply in areas I genuinely enjoy, especially Agentic AI and enterprise workflows. Been spending time building things like contract intelligence agents and AP automation systems to stay hands-on.
Hoping things turn around for both of us soon. Wishing you solid projects and stability ahead too π
Appreciate it πͺ Ironically, while weβre building with AI, I actually lost my job yesterday as AI starts changing roles. Tough moment, but trying to learn, adapt, and keep moving forward
Thanks for the kind words β and your AP automation work sounds right up the same alley. 3-way reconciliation (PO-GRN-Invoice) is exactly the kind of high-stakes workflow where "looks right but drifted" is the scariest failure mode.
We've been hitting the same problem in contract validation: the model outputs a summary that reads fine, but over time the confidence distribution shifts. The financial domain is unforgiving for that kind of silent regression.
Would love to hear how you're approaching the confidence threshold question on the reconcile side. Are you using a fixed cutoff or something adaptive?